Folks on this site and elsewhere have been thinking about what Democrats should say if negotiations fail and Iran proceeds toward getting nuclear weapons. As I see it, there are three major desiderata here. We want to (1) Keep the Bush Administration from engaging in stupid slaughter that strengthens the hand of the forces we like least within Iran, (2) Enunciate a strategy that actually works, so we can use it when we're running things, and (3) Sound non-wussy to your average semi-militaristic American voter, so Bush doesn't beat us up with this issue in 2006.
Lots of grave talk about Mutually Assured Destruction would help us accomplish all of these goals. It shows why Iranian nukes don't necessarily justify military action -- nobody is crazy enough to face the consequences of a nuclear attack on America or one of its allies. Nuclear deterrence will be part of anybody's foreign policy. And when you describe a counterfactual situation where you're willing to destroy millions of people with the most horrific weapons in the history of mankind, nobody will think you're too chicken to use military force in defense of America.
